This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 05:43:51 CET 2015
Caveat - “we are not the [xyz] police” .. in this case, “the document police” .. a fine old trope, that. —srs > On 02-Nov-2015, at 9:14 AM, Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote: > > While I can't speak for the accuracy of the AS204224 record, I > can say that the procedures used by the RIPE NCC to verify the > identity of its members are sufficient and, in my personal > opinion sometimes overreaching. So are the sanctions available for incorrect or false registry entries. > If you were a member or had you bothered to read the relevant > documentation of the process as detailed at https://www.ripe.net > you would know that.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]